About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
't -- he shouldn't be mirandaized right away. i know you agree with them. >> i think the miranda issue is an easier issue. he doesn't have to be mar lindaized for a lot of reason. first of all, they have enough evidence to convict him without getting a confession from him. all miranda gets you is a confession you can use in court. you can use that information for everything else. remember, he confessed already to the guy they kidnapped. the guy he kidnapped says, these two guys told us, we did the bombing. they got great witness and they got a great confession. maybe even better than a law enforcement confession where you can claim it was forced out of you. they gave a upon takenious confession -- spontaneous confession. >> bob wants to get in here. so then why did they need to make that statement? i'm trying to figure out why they made that statement? >> i don't know exactly why they made it. maybe because they got so much criticism -- remember the christmas morning bomber that they mirandaized right away, lost the opportunity to get information from him? so i think maybe they were pl
enforcement. we know that doesn't quite work for several reasons. one, there is an exception in the miranda rights. when a suspect is read their rights by the police, we're talking about a miranda warning. there is a provision that allows in case law that allows for law enforcement to wait if they think there is a national security threat or a danger to the public until they've talked to the person and established there isn't a danger to the public or gotten the information they need. then they can read the miranda rights. that's what the fbi has done in this case. that's what they did in the new york time square bomber. that worked quite well. they talk to him for a while before they read him his rights. then they read him his rights. he kept and he provided very valuable information. we know that the traditional civilian court system founded by the founding fathers can work in this situation. >> let me ask you a couple questions. if the russian government was so concerned about tamerlan as to alert our fbi and our government, and warrant an investigation of him, why are we so sure that dz
analyst. the 19-year-old has not been read his miranda rights. why does this matter what has it allowed for? what is the issue here? >> a lot of variables here, the question is he in any kwan condition to answer questions with or without miranda? what is his health situation? also, even if he doesn't get miranda warnings, he may decline to answer questions in any case. they can't force him to answer questions, but if he does not receive miranda warnings and if he then anticipates questions those answers cannot be used in a criminal case against him. they can be used for intelligence gathering. they can be used if there are other conspirators who may be prosecuted, can't be used against him. other evidence can be used against him. may be lots of other evidence. if you don't get miranda warnings, your statements i can't be used against you. >> so this is a sensitive issue. another sensitive issue raised by republican senators, lindsey graham, kelly ayotte, peter king, they released a statement, the suspect, based upon his actions, clearly is a good candidate for enemy combat tant status.
, let me come over to you, a lot of talk about miranda. but give me a sense of what the leeway is especially in situations like this, after acts like what happened here at the marathon. >> well, it is yesterday's news. he's been given his miranda warnings and probably anything he said without his miranda warnings is not going to be needed by the government or the prosecution. remember, they did not indict him as a terrorist, that's very important. they indicted him as an ordinary murderer, anybody who wants to kill their mother-in-law, business partner and makes an improvised explosive device and kills them is just as guilty under the statute indicted as osama bin laden might be. this is not a terrorist prosecution. they don't have to prove intent to terrorize, intent to intimidate. they can prove their case just through the videotapes. now, i predict there are going to be two types of possible defenses in this case. number one, the jihad defense. i did it, i'm proud, i'm happy, please kill me, i want to join my brother in paradise. i'm a martyr. the other, my brother made me d
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4